Article II. On the Form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

Just as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the matter is twofold and distinct, so also the form of consecration is twofold, one of bread and the other of wine.

285. Principles. - I. The form for the consecration of bread consists in these words: Hoc est enim Corpus meum. But these words, or equivalent ones, are altogether essential to the form, if you except the word enim.

This is clear: 1. from the universal practice of the Church and from its precept in the Roman Missal; 2. from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, and from Trent, sess. 13, ch. 1; 3. from the divine institution itself, for Christ transubstantiated bread into his Body by pronouncing the aforesaid words.

II. The form for the consecration of wine is this: Hic est enim Calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium Fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

This likewise is clear: 1. from the practice and prescription of the Church; 2. from the various Evangelists, who, although they do not report altogether the same words, nevertheless agree perfectly as to this sense.

286. Resolves. - 1. The consecration is valid but illicit if the one consecrating says: Hic cibus est Corpus meum, hic calix est Sanguis meus. Likewise if you pronounce Colpus for Corpus ¹, meus for meum, es for est, calis for calix, Sanguis for Sanguinis, etc. Hence it is deduced that he cannot be excused from venial sin who does not use due diligence for rightly pronouncing the words of consecration. - St. Ligorius, n. 221.

¹ Except unless the imperfect manner of pronouncing arises from a natural defect of the priest, to whom the pronunciation of some letter is difficult or impossible.

2. The consecration will be invalid if you say: Hic (adverbially) est Corpus meum, hoc Corpus est meum, or hic Sanguis est meus, because these words do not have the sense by which they signify that which they must operate. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

3. The consecration is doubtful if you say: Haec est Caro mea; illud est Corpus meum; ille est Sanguis meus. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

4. The words of the form must be pronounced in the person of Christ formally and assertively, or recitatively and at the same time significatively, but not historically only; namely, the words of Christ must be pronounced by applying their signification to the present matter, so that this may be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. Nevertheless, a scruple is not to be had whether the words are pronounced in the due sense; for any Priest is presumed to have the intention of doing that which Christ did and instituted, and thus he sufficiently intends to pronounce the consecratory words in each aforesaid sense. - Elbel, n. 34. - St. Ligorius, on the Eucharist, n. 220..., etc.

287. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether the omission of the word ENIM in the form of consecration is grave?

Resp. It is controverted. The first opinion probably denies, because that word is not found in the words uttered by Christ, and otherwise, as to the precept of the Church, it does not seem to constitute grave matter. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 220.

The second opinion affirms, and St. Ligorius says that this is not improbable. The reason is that in so grave a matter there does not seem to be light matter in any deliberate change. But this opinion seems to be of little account ².

² When it is a question of imposing an obligation, or even of asserting the gravity of guilt, it is altogether useless to bring forward probabilities for that end. For no one is bound to use these probabilities as the norm of his own conscience, nor can a Confessor licitly use this norm with others. But this holds much more when those probabilities are besides uncertain, and because of defect of solid foundation appear limping or wavering. As to how cautiously one must proceed concerning the gravity of fault, compare the unanimous sense of the Doctors in the note to n. 152, vol. 1.

QUESTION 2. Whether in consecration those preceding words are required as essential: QUI PRIDIE QUAM PATERETUR, etc... SIMILI MODO, etc...?

Resp. No, with the common opinion, which St. Ligorius, n. 222, holds. - Lugo, etc. The reason is that these words are pronounced only historically, nor do they seem to have any sacramental efficacy. Nevertheless, if at some time, because of doubtful consecration, the form must be repeated, according to the Rubrics one will have to begin from the words: qui pridie, and simili modo ³. - See St. Ligorius, n. 222.

³ No one in reality asserted that those words, Qui pridie, etc., are required as pertaining to the essential form of consecration; Scotus, however, contended that they are necessary, because otherwise the essential words, Hoc est corpus meum, seem to be referred to the priest himself rather than to Christ.

Now the VV. (p. 931, n. 92), at this place of Father Gury, judged that readers should be warned that St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 222) wrote concerning the opinion of Scotus: I do not dare to call it improbable.

Resp. But it seemed otherwise to others. For concerning it Vasquez (In 3 Part., disp. 198, chap. 1, n. 3) says: Nevertheless this opinion of Scotus is deservedly rejected by all as improbable. And Suarez (In 3 Part., tom. 3, disp. 59, sect. 1): But this opinion is certainly improbable. And Coninck (q. 78, n. 25): It is repugnant to the common sense of the other Doctors, nor is there any reason for asserting this. And Lugo (De Eucharistia, disp. 4, n. 39): This opinion is rejected by all. But Escobar (lib. 20, sect. 2, probl. 33, n. 220): Deservedly almost all authors rise up against Scotus, whose foundation labors under manifest weakness. And these things, lest more be heaped up uselessly, can suffice.

QUESTION 3. Whether in the consecration of the chalice these words alone: HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI... are of the essence of the form?

Resp. The answer is affirmative. The reason is: 1. because the words of consecration of bread are these: Hoc est Corpus meum. Therefore by parity the words of consecration of wine are only these others: Hic est sanguis meus, or other equivalent ones. 2. Because those words alone of themselves express the presence of the blood of Christ under the species of wine. - Thus commonly against some. - See St. Ligorius, n. 223 ⁴.

⁴ Here the VV. (p. 931, n. 92) report this judgment of St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 223): Each opinion is speculatively probable. But in practice it is certain that the priest would sin gravely if he did not pronounce all the words which are had in the consecration of the chalice; and if perhaps he had said only the first words, he certainly should repeat the whole form under condition... according to the rubric, tit. 16, n. 3.

To these things others perhaps will observe that there is certainly no ambiguity about those things which pertain to practice. But as to the statement that speculatively each opinion must be called probable, whoever greatly doubts this certainly cannot be reprehended. Compare Lugo (De Eucharistia, disp. 11, n. 61), where he deservedly says that the negative opinion of certain persons has most valid arguments against it. Compare also Suarez (disp. 60, sect. 1), saying that that opinion has against itself a most urgent argument.

QUESTION 4. Whether the form is valid if it is said: HOC ENIM CORPUS MEUM, with EST understood, as is frequently customary in the Latin language?

Resp. No. For although in continuous speech the substantive verb can easily be understood, nevertheless in the present case it cannot be done; both because there is not continuous speech, and especially because in the matter of which we are treating, the form has not only an assertory sense, as in common speech, but also a force effecting transubstantiation. - St. Ligorius, n. 223, and others very commonly.